Sorry for being too late (due to much undue tasks), but still thanks for your interest in our user group. We would like to invite you to an IRC channel (#wikimedia-hkconnect) or its Telegram counterpart (contact me or 1233 for access) for discussions on community matters, as you wish.
An article you recently created, Buserite, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for replying. You could say instead, 'it has been noted' or 'some researchers has said that' instead of deleting the phrase and not using edit summaries. Thanks! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me!02:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will use edit summaries. I think we can add more also. I have not read the study, but I think it would be because of diet and not the training itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karkanxholl (talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
Why do not you consider any reason why you are not considering my page draft:sanjay chhimpa? All reasonable facts have been explained in detail, there is also a proper link, you have also blocked from the Wikipedia Helpline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgnr01549 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sgnr01549, I was working on other things. I can't help every single one of you, and I couldn't 'consider' not helping you with the page. I was reading your page, and made an edit when someone asked me to review another page. His page had more information than yours, too, so I helped him first. By the way, who said I was 'blocked' from the IRC 'helpline' channel? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me!13:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oshawott 12. I reviewed your request for the pending changes reviewer permissions, and after taking some time to weigh some thoughts, your trustworthiness, and experience vs some concerns that I found regarding a few things, I went ahead and approved your request and granted you access to the pending changes reviewer tools. I have some concerns which I will detail below and conclude with recommendations; please read them carefully and take them to heart, understand that I approved your request for the tools despite these concerns, that I'll probably get questioned and receive some grief from other admins due to approving your request, and follow my expectations outlined below.... and please, PLEASE don't make me regret my decision to grant you these user rights despite the number of red flags that I ran into... lol ;-)
I noticed that you applied for this user right back in January 2019, and it was declined by Swarm due to many legitimate concerns that he listed in his response here. Assuming that Swarm is correct with his count in his response to your previous request for these permissions, this last request you made here that I approved makes this your sixth attempt to apply for and be granted the user rights. You were also told by some reviewing administrators (including Swarm in his response to your last request in January 2019) that you lack the relevant experience as well as the patience to fully follow through with what you've been told to improve on before applying for the user rights again. As also said by Swarm, applying for user rights frequently and repeatedly and well before you've shown improvement in the relevant areas first makes a very bad impression on your image, your intentions, and your level of trust. That behavior is indicative of users who want to be granted the tools in order to just "have them" (for one reason or another), and not because you'll actually use the tools (or use them well or correctly) and that you intend to use them to help improve the project.
As with anybody else on Wikipedia with access to this user right, you're expected to actually use the pending changes reviewer permissions and review articles with pending changes that are currently awaiting approval, and use them properly, appropriately, and follow all of the relevant policies and procedures involved. I'm sure that I don't need to say this, but given the concerns above, I am going to do so and just this once to formalize it and make it clear: If you're found to be repeatedly misusing the tool or making wrong decisions or judgment calls involving the tool and due to the lack of overall editing experience or the failure to review and understand the appropriate policies, process, or guidelines, or if you stop using the tool or don't use the tool at all - any administrator is welcome to revoke your access to this user right and do so without my prior approval, input, or notification beforehand.
Given my concerns listed above, as well as the expectations I've set... I'm going to proceed with the usual message that other editors receive when approved for the user rights. Please review it. :-) ....
Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Hi - regarding this AfD discussion, I'm sorry to stick my nose in, but I'm not sure your relisting was appropriate. I must stress that I have not exhaustively read through the instructions for AfD clerks, so I may be speaking out of turn here, but I have never seen someone relist a discussion that they have also voted in, and I've never seen a discussion relisted just two days after the last relist. Can I check with you whether you've read the guidelines on this? Cheers GirthSummit (blether)15:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SkyGazer 512 - I've reverted the most recent relist as requested. I'm still a bit confused about Oshawott's first relist - it was only 5 days after the RandyKitty's relisting, and again I've never seen a user relist a discussion that they've participated in. I'm not looking to make any kind of fuss about this, just wanted to make sure that Oshwott had read up on the process and was confident they were doing it right. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)17:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that relisting a discussion one has participated in is either not allowed or strongly discouraged, but don't take my word for that. Regardless, I'm probably going to stay out of this for now, as I have no particular interest in this AfD; I just wanted to point out what Oshawott said on Discord.--SkyGazer 512My talk page17:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm
Hi there, re: this comment, I wasn't being sarcastic in my apology to that user. I realised that I was not behaving per our civility policy by being condescending and ridiculing them. It's not how I like to operate even if I thought they were deliberately being hard-headed and might have been trolling me. Thus, I apologised and disengaged. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
Sorry, my bad there. The page said she was French in the revisions that I started editing it, but the Wikidata item says she is American. I have now corrected it to say 'French-born American'. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me!05:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oshawott - Your changes are perfect. I changed only "was" to "is" (present tense) to denote that the author is still living.
Thanks! Speaking of which, would you like to join us by being an editor? You can sign up now, and you could help out and learn how to edit at your own pace. Also, remember to add ‘~~~~‘ after your message to add your signature. It really helps us identify easier who typed the message. Thanks! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me!08:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sherry Argov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Proposed Safe Space Policy for the Hong Kong User Group
To ensure a safe, friendly, inclusive and harassment-free environment for all future events, it is proposed that a Safe Space Policy shall be established by the User Group.
A consultation on the proposed policy is currently conducted. During the consultation period, please voice your opinion on the discussion thread in Meta. The proposed policy would come in effect on 22 May 2019 if no objections are raised by the user group members.
Hi Oshawott 12. I just wanted to give you a heads-up that the three reverts you've made on La Croix Sparkling Water ([1][2][3]) are getting close to violating the three-revert rule, which is something that often results in a block. Please be more careful in the future – oftentimes my advice is to stop reverting after being reverted just once, unless it's obvious vandalism. Please also avoid using IRC to canvass for reverts, especially if it could be seen as trying to circumvent the three-revert rule. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Nasdack and Mz7: Thanks for the reminder, Mz7. I had a small mix-up with vandals, and I just saw Nasdack as a new user with a big edit, so I reverted and forgot to see the summary. Sorry for that. I was really confused and just restored the undisputed version, and messed up. I’ll try to be more careful and double-check after my edits. About the IRC part, it was basically me thinking they were vandals. Sorry for the mix-up and for the bad revert. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me!12:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you think you are doing there, but please stop doing it. Your very first edit was already against our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. I was about to revert the talk page comments back when he moved the page. I tried to move it back, and got very confused. Again, thanks for the reminder. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me!02:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
Hey, Oshawott 12. I saw you talking to Jimmy Wales on his talk page earlier and immediately noticed your custom signature, I want to know how to do the same but not sure. Maybe you could help me? AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you come across an article that has stale {cn}'s as an editor it would be more proper to try and find sources to those {cn}'s ~ the only reason that I found sources for your 'edits' was because I watch that page for vandalism ~ I don't really start editing the pages I watch unless I get a break from my teachings ~ then I go to the ref's and start cleaning them up and if I really am interested in an article I will do a major edit in my sand box ~ as you can see here and here the latter being a merge of three pages ~ so when a new editor such as you start deleting sections it leaves editors like me out on a limb when I start to work on a page ~ @Oshwah:Mitchellhobbs (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The {cn} tags are over 10 years old. As I said, I’m not required to read through your userpage and stuff. I really don’t agree with the ‘new editor’ part, since I started earlier than you and have more edits, but fine...? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me!13:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
once again you misread information according to your contributions page you started editing in 2017 ~ if you subtract 5 from 19 it comes up to 2014 ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you’re talking about now. Also, was that a personal attack I see? As another editor says, have it your way. I give up. And please, stop pinging me. Thanks. ;) Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me!14:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reading back, I see you might’ve meant your registration date. I skipped through and saw your userpage creation date. I typically see that as when someone started to actually be active, so sorry about that. Anyways, have it your way and have fun WP:OWNing articles, as you seem to have been doing. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me!14:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW also all those have it you way and have fun linking wiki's is a personal attavk on another editor ~ be safe and try to give newbies a better look on their edits ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
just a hint not complaining ~ but if you use another editors work ~ like you have been doing from my talk page to yours ~ it would be customary to give that editor who wrote those words proper credit in your summary ~ ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I am just plain confused. I have never seen anyone give credit when linking to others’ talk pages. This is just hypocrisy, calling people a new editor while looking like one yourself. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me!14:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For correctly identifying the reason behind my rename had to do with masking my gender (then thinking you deserved a trout over it). –MJL‐Talk‐☖16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
